This appeal has been filed against the judgment and preliminary decree of the trial court in O.S.No.230/1987 on the file of the II Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore granting the relief of partition directing division of the 1st and 3rd item of the suit properties into two equal shares and allotment of one such share to the plaintiff therein. The appeal came to be disposed of by a previous judgment dated 08.02.2007, by which this court had allowed the appeal, set aside the preliminary decree passed by the trial court and dismissed the suit. Contending that there was an error apparent on the face of the record in the said judgment, the respondents 4 to 8 herein filed a Review Application in Review Appln. No.109 of 2007. The said Review Application was allowed by order dated 04.04.2016. Based on the order allowing the review application and thereby making it incumbent on this court to re-hear the appeal, the appeal was re-heard and this court pronounces the following fresh judgment.

2. As against the preliminary decree of the trial court dated 14.01.1992 passed in O.S.No.230/1987, the second defendant has filed the appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant (second defendant) died and his legal representatives got themselves impleaded as appellants 2 to 5. Similarly, the first respondent/plaintiff Chinnathayee died during the pendency of the appeal and her legal representatives have been impleaded as respondents 4 to 8.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to in accordance with their ranks in the original suit and in appropriate places their ranks in the second appeal shall also be mentioned.

4. Chinnathayee, the deceased first respondent in the appeal, filed the above said suit O.S.No.230/1987 on the file of the II Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore for partition against Thulasi (the second respondent herein), Karuppa Konar (the deceased appellant) and Mounasamy (the third respondent herein) arraying them as defendants 1 to 3 respectively, claiming 1/2 share in the suit properties. The claim was made based on the plaint averments that are, in brief, as follows:

The plaintiff (the deceased first respondent) and the first defendant (second respondent Thulasi) were sisters. Their maternal grandmother Palaniammal was the owner of the suit properties. She bequeathed her properties under her last Will dated 11.12.1967 in favour of her daughters Kaliammal and Rangammal. The said Rangammal died before marriage and without issues. Thus her share also went to her sister Kaliammal, the mother of the plaintiff and the first defendant. The suit properties had been in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff and the first defendant till the date of filing of the suit and the second defendant Karuppa Konar had no interest in or title to the suit properties. However falsely claiming that he was the legal heir of Rangammal, he staked title to the suit properties. Colluding with the third defendant Mounasamy, who also did not have any right in the suit properties, the second defendant Karuppa Konar tried to trespass into the suit properties. In such an attempt of defendants 2 and 3, the first defendant was also supporting them. Hence the plaintiff was constrained to file the suit for partition and separate possession.

5. The first defendant Thulasi filed a written statement containing, in brief, the following averments: The allegation made in the plaint as if Rangammal died as a spinster is false. Before her death she got married but died without issues. Her husband also passed away. The second item of the suit properties is not available for partition as it had already been alienated by Palaniammal herself during her lifetime. The Will of Palaniammal dated 11.12.1967 is genuine. On the other hand, it is false to state that Palaniammal executed a second Will on 03.12.1974 and the same was the last Will of Palaniammal. From 1973, she was bedridden and hence was not in a position to execute any W